It’s a wrenching moment in “Star Trek” when the elderly Spock can only watch as his homeworld, Vulcan, is destroyed by the villainous Nero.
I can empathize with Spock, because this is how I’ve felt for the last three years. Luckily, I haven’t had to watch something as emptying as my home being obliterated – but I have had to watch as a movie I love, “Star Trek Into Darkness,” has gotten disparaged again and again and again.
I’ve adored JJ Abrams’ second Star Trek outing since its release in 2013 and my regard for it has only grown in the intervening years. Despite debuting to overwhelmingly positive reviews – 227 fresh to a mere 37 rotten on Rotten Tomatoes – the general sentiment toward the film has skewed negative ever since. Most of that negativity stems from the movie’s inclusion of Khan, as well as its multiple nods to the Trek film that character originally appeared in, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.”
(Also, considering how the previous film ended with the Enterprise warping off into the unknown, I can appreciate how some viewers might be disappointed that the sequel didn’t end up committing to a deep-space setting, as “Star Trek Beyond” eventually would.)
I take solace in the fact, though, that two of my favorite people also adored the film. At the time of its release, essayist Chuck Klosterman appeared on Grantland’s “Do You Like Prince Movies?” podcast and said the following:
“I thought this was the best Star Trek film I’ve ever seen. I thought that it was absolutely the best movie in the history of this franchise… I thought it was great. I was shocked by how awesome it was, to be honest.”
And last December, I had the following exchange with novelist and YouTuber John Green on Twitter:
Sure, John says that he liked “The Force Awakens” better than either of the Star Trek films… but he’s on the record as saying he liked “Into Darkness,” which I’m counting as a major victory! The author of “The Fault in Our Stars” is on my side! Take that, haters!
While I can’t speak to what John or Chuck liked about “Into Darkness,” here’s what I like about it, in a nutshell: It’s a thoughtful meditation on the United States’ response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and, in a broader sense, the nature of vengeance.
The parallels between the plot of “Into Darkness” and the aftermath of 9/11 are striking. I’ve already mentioned how “Star Trek” features the destruction of Vulcan. Well, for the uninitiated, Vulcan was one of the founding members of the United Federation of Planets. And for it to be annihilated, especially in such an abrupt manner, that qualifies as a 9/11-level event in the Star Trek universe. Accordingly, “Into Darkness” frames it as such.
This incident, understandably, terrified the Federation, just as 9/11 did the U.S. In both cases, the aggrieved parties managed to regroup and go on the offensive; the Enterprise defeated Nero and his fearsome ship while the U.S. military, along with allies, entered Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban government, forcing terror group al-Qaeda to flee.
After that, the Federation – or at least Starfleet’s shadowy Section 31 – and the U.S. cast their gazes on entities that might strike next. For the U.S., it was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which it invaded. As for Section 31, it aimed to crank up the temperature on a cold war with the Klingon Empire.
The U.S. may have entered Iraq and deposed Hussein’s oppressive regime, but went on to battle insurgents in the country for the better part of a decade; along with thousands of Iraqis, nearly 4,500 U.S. troops died between 2003 and ’11. The Federation never got that far with the Klingons, as the Enterprise failed to initiate hostilities between the two, spoiling a Section 31 scheme.
That things don’t play out in “Into Darkness” the same way they did in real life tells you everything you need to know about where the film’s writers, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof, stand on the Iraq War. “Into Darkness” decries the cynicism of the “attack-or-be-attacked” mentality that led to the preemptive strike on Iraq. Furthermore, it suggests that for as good an outcome as Hussein’s ouster was, it wasn’t worth the steep price that was paid for it.
Exploring contemporary issues is one of Star Trek’s proudest traditions, dating all the way back to its inception in 1966. “Into Darkness” couldn’t have honored that legacy any better, deftly tackling what’s been the biggest world event to occur in my lifetime, not to mention the majority of others’.
While the U.S. response to 9/11 informs the plot of “Into Darkness,” the film’s theme is vengeance. That’s precisely what Kirk is seeking when, under orders from Admiral Marcus, he takes the Enterprise to Kronos, the Klingon homeworld, to execute a fugitive Khan for the atrocities he’s committed. That Kirk would ultimately disobey these orders – and avoid inciting war with the Klingon Empire – is a credit to his crew. Spock and Scotty both strongly disagree with the mission’s parameters and Kirk, wisely, heeds their advice before it’s too late. Rather than launch torpedoes at Khan’s location on the planet, the young captain opts for a less incendiary approach, leading a small landing party to the surface to apprehend Khan.
The importance of what Spock and Scotty managed to do can’t be understated; not only do they get Kirk, who was blinded by vengeance, to see reason, they end a vengeance chain reaction that was perpetrated by Nero.
The enraged future Romulan may not appear in “Into Darkness,” but he casts a long shadow over the movie. Nero is, in fact, the source of the film’s titular darkness, as everything negative that happens in the film can be traced back to him.
Nero starts his vengeance chain reaction when he decides to eradicate Vulcan as revenge for Ambassador Spock’s failure to thwart the annihilation of Romulus. The destruction of a Federation world as important as Vulcan impacts Admiral Marcus, who resolves that in order to effectively retaliate after such an attack, Starfleet must possess more military might. Marcus’ commitment to this belief compels him to work with Khan and, in time, threaten the reanimated warlord’s beloved crew as a means of controlling him. This impacts Khan, who, after escaping from Marcus, believes that his crew has been killed as a consequence. Accordingly, Khan seeks revenge and orchestrates a meeting of high-level Starfleet personnel – led by Marcus – which he then attacks. Christopher Pike, one of Kirk’s closest friends, is among the assault’s casualties. Devastated by the death of his mentor, a vengeful Kirk vows to kill Khan.
Marcus, Khan and Kirk were all affected by Nero’s actions. While Nero may have been dead, his lust for vengeance lived on – even took physical form in Marcus’ ship, the aptly titled Vengeance. Furthermore, Nero already destroyed one planet, but had Kirk ended up firing on Kronos, sparking a conflict with the Klingons, he’d be responsible for whatever devastation the Federation and Klingon Empire befell, too.
This, ultimately, is why “Into Darkness” is the perfect sequel to “Star Trek.” As much as people think they would’ve liked to have seen an adventure like the one depicted in “Beyond,” “Into Darkness” explores the ramifications of what happened in “Star Trek” and makes it an even richer film, while managing to surpass it itself.
At the end of the movie, Kirk eloquently sums up the danger of vengeance in his speech at the Enterprise’s rechristening ceremony:
“There will always be those who mean to do us harm. To stop them, we risk awakening the same evil within ourselves.”
And so, after three years of getting angry at people who lambast “Into Darkness,” I’m going to do something I should’ve done a long time ago: Take the film’s advice.
From here on out, no more losing my temper, no more leaving snarky comments on film blogs. I loved “Into Darkness.” It’s OK if you don’t.
And, ironically, that might be the greatest testament to the film of all.
EVE OF STEVE 